This article is pretty weak by the Economist's usually high standards, I have to say.
No suspects have been apprehended and no anti-globalisation message has been left on the scene of the crime. There is no way of knowing why these people were targeted or if the attacker knew them personally. In other words, everything about the incident, from the perpetrator to the motivation, is still a mystery.
Yet you've squeezed an entire article out of the lazy assumption it must be a religiously motivated 'terrorist' attack.
(Speaking of which, my first impulse would be to call the act of throwing acid at two people in the street assault, not terrorism. So would yours, though selectively. Did you call the acid attack on the artistic director of the Bolshoi Theatre terrorism, when it became clear he'd been attacked but no one knew the details yet? No, you didn't. Some consistent standards would be nice here.)
Anyway. Though what happened to these girls is horrible and I hope they recover well, I can't muster up too much sympathy for two British teenagers "teaching English" to Tanzanian children on their gap yah. This is the sort of self-serving white saviour tourist gig that makes people in the developing world resent Westerners, and with good reason.

The article never actually states this was an act of terrorism, just that an incident took place and that the 'perpetrators remain unknown' (and so too, their motives). From here though, we can segue from unknown territory of uncertain facts into what we do know, the social situation unravelling in Zanzibar. An impoverished state, a growing base of radical Islam, a series of 'unrelated church burnings, riots, disappearances and assassinations', a President announcing 'it is not Islam', a moderate muslim cleric declaring 'it' to be the work of Uamsho (which supports secession, as well as the implementation of Islam oriented social changes)... ending with the Economist pointing out 'There is no clear evidence for such a link: Uamsho says it pursues its aims through non-violent means' - the fact is, whoever did this and for whatever reasons, it might not be terrorism, but the result is the same, people are scared.

Islamophobes, where exactly in the Qur'an does it say that acid attacks against women are permissible under any circumstances? I can point out numerous areas where it says that under no circumstances are humans allowed to harm one another.

Even the "kuffar", mistranslated as "disbeliever" are meant to be left alone without harm.

Sorry to disturb your ignorance parade, please continue with your enlightened belief of atheism as the cure all for everything.

I see where you're coming from, but the reality is that a religion exists only in the minds and deeds of its adherents. Religions do not exist as abstract entities with attributes independent of their devotees. If the followers of Islam (or indeed any faith) are generally predisposed towards treating women oppressively, then it is indeed accurate to say that this is a characteristic of the religion. Faiths are defined by the actions of their followers, not by the dry words in their texts.

Good180, the Qur'an does NOT prescribe acid attacks... but then, it does not explain what constitutes 'terror' Q(3:151), nor does it explain how unbelievers should be killed Q(2:191-193), nor does it say by what means you should cut off someones head and fingertips Q(8:12) - maybe god favours the imaginative, which would explain the HUGE variation of belief with regards to observing Hijab.

Corinthian, you replied to me with pure speculation and subjective opinions. "Religions exists only in the minds and deeds of its adherents". Where is your proof? Have you proven that God does not exist?

You offered me no proof, no reply to my questions and thus you failed to challenge Islam and failed to assert that it promotes violence.

You are another liar but I am glad you admitted that Islam had nothing to do with this acid attack. Now let's look at your false misinterpretations of the Qur'an.

Surah 2: 191 -193

191 "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the kaffir."

192- "And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

193 - "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

Here Allah allows a PURELY defensive war against kaffir NOT disbelievers. Kaffir does not mean disbeliever, this is a mistranslation by ignorant "Muslim scholars" and is repeated without thinking by ignorant people like you. If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge you would go to an Arabic lexicon, see what the root verb of kaffir is and see that, if God does exist, He would know which word to use for which meaning He wanted to give. Kaffir has one meaning only, and it isn't disbeliever.

Surah 8:12
[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Where is Allah telling humans to cut off human's fingertips? He's merely saying to people "remember". It is not a command and if it were it would be completely contradictory. Not only does Allah repeatedly forbid humans harming humans except in cases of whipping for sexual infidelity (not stoning) and for thieves (hands unless they repent) He, leaves punishment solely up to Himself.

God does not favour the imaginative, as again, He repeatedly states throughout the Qur'an.

Its sad, people like you cannot be reasoned with as your heads are stuck too far up your own asses.

BTW, I never said Islam had nothing to do with the acid attack on these 2 teenagers, rather, I indicated that the Qur'an does not specify how to deal with Kafir (arabic root, 'hide/cover', similar to Kafara; arabic root 'disbelieve' - used to refer to those that KNOW but ignore or disregard the TRUTH, hence DISBELIEVER).

Zanzibar is over 99% muslim, and impoverished, blaming the mainland christians for the conditions within their Semi-Autonomous region. The moderate Muslim cleric, Sheikh Fadhil Soraga, who was himself injured in an acid attack last year, blames this particular attack on Uamsho - who themselves want to impose a restrictive dress code on foreigners and prohibit the sale of alcohol (doesn't sound like Islam at all)... but perhaps when the conservative Imam Sheikh Issa Ponda Issa is brought in for questioning (he's on the run from officials), we'll get some 'real' answers.

Your understanding of what is knowledge and truth, is a belief, not anything you can comprehend with utmost certainty, a fervent belief that what you know to be absolute truth, is faith... just, a strong belief.

I like your 4th paragraph though. God only punishes those who KNOW he exists and do not follow what they KNOW He wants. Everyone has heard of Islam, it is the second largest on the planet, so, those that are not Muslim, have made a choice NOT to believe in Him. A large contingent of 'those people' (the Jews & Christians) do believe in Him though, they just refuse to worship him according to truths handed down through Muhammad over 23 years. Are we not Kafir?

Excuse me if I still don't understand the meaning of the word, you seem NOT to want to provide it.

Acid attacks are despicable and heinous crimes. They are widespread in India and Southeast Asia as well. They are the result of jealousy and personal vendettas, as often as they are religiously motivated. The victims must not only endure the agony of the attack itself, but the ostracism of society and even friends and family, as a result of their disfigurement.

I am not a Muslim but after reading translation of Islamic Holy book Quran. i think it is the most beautiful and peaceful religion on earth.if people have made their own school of thoughts for their personal gains and do crimes plz don't relate it with this beautiful religion.Islam i think is modern form of Christianity & was shocked to read that even after 1400 years of revelation not a single word of this holy book not changed.God has always send its Prophets to reform our characters & soul it is never mention in any place go out and kill innocent people.

I doubt what you claim here. That you are not a Muslim. And please, don't churn out crap about what book you have read. That book has been read by many others too. I don't see anything beautiful in the book or the religion. The books of Hindus are far more cerebral and thoughtful. That does not mean anything. They too are outdated in today's context. The fact remains that all religions are stupid and outdated ideas.
They might have been useful in olden times, but completely stupid in modern age.
If you can't see and understand this simple fact, any amount of reading would not help you.
Your reading of religious books has not helped you intellectually and it is quite obvious.
For reforming character and soul (whatever that means)no prophets are required. Being human is enough.
Stop polluting the internet with your stupid ideas! You need to read a few more books, apart from what have read till now.

Given that the 'prophet' himself conquered and enslaved the Jews who opposed him, the first generation of the Arabs after his death invaded North Africa and Spain, only finally being turned back in France, one has to doubt that the 'prophet' meant his religion to be peaceful... But if such deceptions keep you happy down here, enjoy them; sadly they won't do you much good for the next world.

Please tell me your understanding of the story of the Bani Quraytha Jews and the 'prophet'; it's my understanding that even Muslim sources admit that they were enslaved following their (alleged) breach of the peace treaty.

As far as Islam spreading 'more peacefully'; please read what I said. I didn't say that Islam was imposed, what I did say was that in period immediately following the arrival of Islam, the Arabs conquered large swathes of the world. Therefore one can legitimately come to the conclusion that Islam has no problem with its disciples invading other countries, a process that continued, off and on, for the next 1000 years until the Turks were finally turned back from Vienna in 17th century.

There are many peaceful Muslims today. The question is whether the ideology of much of Islam - with its militaristic understanding of the Umma and its willingness to kill apostates because they have abandoned the cause in the face of the enemy - is the truth about Islam. Peaceful Muslim claim this isn't real Islam. However given the freedom that Islam gives, under the doctrine of 'taqqyia', to lie about the faith, we don't have to believe them.

Everything you said makes Islam out to be some human-led counsel who sanctions their "disciples"'s actions regardless of their ethical qualities (as judged by the Qur'an alone).

This is not true. Learn to differentiate between human actions and what is sanctioned under the religion. Start by reading the Qur'an because you seem to be interested in judging 'alleged' adherents to this religion. Your "legitimate conclusions" are illegitimate and strictly-speaking, irrelevant to the content matter.

Also, nowhere in the Qur'an does it sanction the killing of unbelievers which is what your 'apostates' comment states. It specifically tells you to leave them alone unless they attack you. It specifically states that God will take care of them, not humans. Most importantly, look up the root verb of "kaffir", "kuffar", "kafir" etc and see how deep both your misunderstanding and the misunderstanding of so-called Muslim scholars lies.

P.s. Find me the verse in the Qur'an which sanctions taqqyia please. Find me where it says it's ok for Muslims to tell lies.

I am surprised by your logical approach to a discussion. Generally, it is not expected from followers of this religion. It is not my job to prove or un-prove an idea. Think hard. Maybe you yourself would do it, provided you are flexible enough to change opinions. By the way, does your theory give you this freedom to change preset notions? By the way, can you cite a few items from your theory that you or anyone has proved? Did your religion first suggest that the earth is round? Did it first reveal that the earth goes around the Sun and not otherwise. Did it suggest that life has evolved with time and no one has created humans and other creatures suddenly? Please cite a few things from your theory...you may call it religion by the way...that have already been proven. I will be happy to get rid of my ignorance. Thank you for your suggestion.

I note that you haven't challenged my claim that the 'prophet' enslaved the Bani Quraytha Jews. You called me a liar. Are you withdrawing that allegation?

The argument about apostates is not the same as the argument about unbelievers. It's apostates, ones who reject Islam, who get executed. As far as unbelievers are concerned, the Koran offers protection to the people of the book, which implies that other non-Muslims are to be subject to persecution.

I repeat my claim about the BEHAVIOUR of the 'prophet' and his immediate followers. He conquered all those around. His followers burst out of Arabia and conquered all the way to France. This was in the first and second generation after the 'prophet'. Either they were good Muslims, or the 'prophet' hadn't taught them well - and apparently you want them to do as he said, not do as he did, i.e. conquer everyone they could.

i wish God give you some courage to read this Holy book then put your comments.A brief statement of well-known liberal minded English writer, Bernard Shaw has said: "I have always held the religion of Muhammad (P) in high estimation, because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capability to the changing phase of existence, which can make itself appeal to every age. I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow, and the signs of this are becoming apparent even now. The medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance or bigotry, painted Muhammadanism in the darkest colours. They were, in fact, trained both to hate the man, Muhammad, and his religion. To them Muhammad was anti-Christ. I have studied him, the wonderful man, and, in my opinion, far from being anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the leadership of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness".

When you make false claims Elloy you bring it upon yourself to prove or disprove it otherwise people will simply ignore you as a person who intentionally tells lies. You have offered zero proof for your claims. All you ask is that I "think hard" and you also make false claims that all I have are theories. Indeed, I never even said I was Muslim. Your condescending claim that I was reasonable makes me laugh, because I see no reasonable debate from your side.

Also, what theories are these? All I have done is disprove what you said and ask you for clarification.

Let's look at your Taqiya misunderstanding backed up by so-called "Islamic scholars". Surah 16:106,
"Whoever is a kaffir to Allah after his iman... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to being a kafir, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment".

All this says is that if you become a kaffir you will be punished by God alone unless you were forced (probably by violence) to renounce Allah. Kaffir does NOT mean disbeliever as you and all these other "Muslims" would know if they bothered to open an Arabic lexicon instead of relying on ignorant mistranslations. Nowhere does it say that "Muslims can lie" nor is this even implied. Your Wikipedia citations and ludicrous understanding is insufficient and lazy.

Now surah 3.28 which you falsely claim gives authorisation to "deception in wider relationships".
"Let not those with iman take kaffir as allies rather than those with iman. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination."

Again your mistranslation is not even a matter of interpretation. I suggest again that you consult an Arabic lexicon instead of relying on "Muslim scholars" who are as ignorant as you.

Where is your proof that Muhammad enslaved anyone let alone the Jews? You remain a liar until you can prove it objectively. Please do not cite Wikipedia again and make false interpretations.

You know nothing of the behaviour of the prophet and in any event, the "BEHAVIOUR" of human beings does not impact on the "MEANING" of the Qur'an. Another ludicrous assertion is that Muslims, a tiny amount of them "burst" out of Arabia and conquered some of the finest and largest armies in the world. Where is your proof? You have none! All you have is belief and opinion.

I you do what I did. Instead of bothering with "XYZ are bad people" and "This quote can mean this or that" you should focus on the fundamental question, by proving with a in terms of hard knowledge, "Does God exist or not and how can I prove it objectively, i.e. as a matter of Truth that is applicable yesterday, today and tomorrow". Devote your time to this if you wish to overcome your ignorance and you may succeed as I did when I threw off my own ignorance.

If you can be truly humble enough to ask for help then I shall give it.

Some 24 hours ago you accused me of being a liar for suggesting that the 'prophet' enslaved people. I referred you to a well known story in Islam's history, and you failed to respond.

The reality is that you have been worshipping a god proclaimed by a deeply flawed man, someone who enslaved Jews and effectively enslaved a girl by taking her as his wife at the age of 9. That you take this man's word seriously is foolish, and in truth indicates that you are not worshipping the God who made the heavens and the earth. I suggest you might like to engage with Christianity; CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity', available on line, is an excellent introduction by an Oxford don who came to Christianity from an atheist background. I hope you find it helpful.

Zanzibar is a beautiful island with terrible history. The place served as staging post for millions of black African slaves destined for Arabia thousands of years before the more famous atlantic slave trade began.

Here families were separated, beaten, women and children branded and raped, men castrated and sick babies thrown to the sea.

More recently, the desscendanst of those slaves, who somehow convinced themselves they are Arabs despite all the evidence to the contrary, have been looking more to Arabia than African hinterland as a source of social and political guide.

Don't be a snide know-it-all. The motives of the attack remain unknown. And one can easily imagine crimes like this happening with or without Islam, and with or without religion in general. What, no psycho throws acid at people's faces where you live?